DOCSLIB.ORG

Making the G20 Summit Process Work: Some Proposals for Improving Effectiveness and Legitimacy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Making the G20 Summit Process Work: Some Proposals for Improving Effectiveness and Legitimacy CIGI G20 Papers | No. 2, June 2010 Making the G20 Summit Process Work: Some Proposals for Improving Effectiveness and Legitimacy Barry Carin, Paul Heinbecker, Gordon Smith, Ramesh Thakur Addressing International Governance Challenges The Centre for International Governance Innovation Table of Contents Summary Summary 2 This paper assesses the current context following the G20 summits in Washington, London and Pittsburgh and the Introduction 3 prospects for the forthcoming meetings in Canada and Korea in 2010 and beyond. It asks which global problems Context 3 could be on future agendas and how to achieve both The Future Agendas 5 effectiveness and legitimacy. It discusses the composition of the G20, working and coordination methods in the Composition 6 preparatory process, and effective outreach processes. The main conclusions are: A “Non-Secretariat” 10 Outreach and Consultation Processes 11 • The G20 should limit the agenda to the financial crisis issues and contain the inevitable pressures to The Non-G20 11 broaden the agenda by inviting other groups and organizations to provide recommendations for G20 Parliamentarians 12 consideration at future G20 meetings. Business 12 • Composition is an intractable problem, with no Research Community 12 correct answer. Legitimacy and efficiency could be attained by the Europeans speaking with one voice Conclusion 13 rather than six or eight, while the host country invites two or three “guests.” Works Cited 13 Acronyms and Abbreviations 15 • To reconcile the need for extensive preparation with the antipathy to formal bureaucracy, the G20 should About CIGI 15 About the Authors Figures and Tables Barry Carin is a CIGI senior fellow and associate director of the Figure 1: Options for Composition 8 Centre for Global Studies at the University of Victoria. He was assistant deputy minister in Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and served as Canada’s high commissioner to Singapore and representative at the OECD. Paul Heinbecker is a CIGI distinguished fellow and director of This paper was originally prepared for the CIGI conference on the Wilfrid Laurier University Centre for Global Relations. He “International Governance Innovation: Issues for the 2010 was assistant deputy minister in Canada’s Department of Foreign Summits,” May 3–5, 2010, Waterloo, Canada. Affairs and International Trade and served as ambassador to Germany and as permanent representative to the United Nations. Gordon Smith is a CIGI distinguished fellow and executive director of the Centre for Global Studies at the University of Victoria. He was the deputy minister in Canada’s Department of Foreign The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Centre for International Governance Innovation or its Board of Directors and/ Affairs and International Trade and his diplomatic posts included or Board of Governors. ambassador to the European Union and NATO. Ramesh Thakur is a professor of political science at the University Copyright © 2010, The Centre for International Governance Innovation. This work was carried out with the support of The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), of Waterloo and was senior vice rector of the United Nations Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (www.cigionline.org). This work is licensed under a Creative University in Tokyo and an assistant secretary-general of the Commons Attribution — Non-commercial — No Derivatives License. To view this license, visit (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc-nd/3.0/). For re-use or distribution, please include United Nations. this copyright notice. 2 Making the G20 Summit Process Work: Some Proposals for Improving Effectiveness and Legitimacy set up a summit “non-secretariat.” This nimble, non- grouping. Opposition evaporated in the face of the scale bureaucratic structure could be located for one year of the 2008 crisis and the necessity to reach broader-based in the host country, headed by the G20 troika sherpas, agreement than the G8 could deliver. The previously with two being non-resident. scheduled November 2008 G20 finance ministers’ meeting in Washington was then upgraded to a leaders’ summit. • More systematic and structured consultations with What is most significant is that it was the US that decided non-G20 countries, civil society, parliamentarians, that the G8 leaders and the G20 finance ministers were not the policy research community and the private sector enough to deal with the financial crisis.2 In Washington, could add to legitimacy and effectiveness. the leaders agreed to meet again in London, and then another meeting was set for Pittsburgh, to follow up on the progress being made in response to the crisis. With the G20 leaders meeting this year in Toronto and then Introduction in Seoul, it appears that this leaders’ forum has become “the” forum for international economic cooperation. In the wake of the global financial crisis, the Group of 20 (G20) emerged as the “premier forum for international Most observers agree that the coordinated efforts economic cooperation” (U.S. Department of State, 2009). emerging from the three G20 summits so far have Global leaders met (for the first time as a group of 20) in contributed to a more rapid recovery than anticipated. Washington, and subsequently in London and Pittsburgh, In Washington, in September 2008, leaders drafted a when it became apparent that the existing political and plan and assigned specific tasks for implementation economic institutions — the International Monetary Fund by various institutions. In London, in April 2009, (IMF), the Group of 8 (G8), the United Nations (UN) or promises were made to increase resources for the IMF, the G20 grouping of finance ministers — were incapable repair the financial system and maintain the global of coordinating a response to the financial crisis in the fall flow of capital. In Pittsburgh, in September 2009, the of 2008. With the IMF viewed by developing countries communiqué focused on jobs and the real economy, with scepticism, the G8 unrepresentative of current global while re-endorsing previous promises and directing 1 realities, and the UN too large, another format was needed the Financial Stability Board (FSB) to monitor progress to bring the crucial decision makers together. Furthermore, on financial regulation. The Pittsburgh communiqué the participation of leaders at the highest level was needed. also incorporated policies on climate change and The decisions required to tackle the financial crisis went energy into the recovery agenda. beyond the boundaries of G20 finance ministers’ portfolios. The G20 has already delivered on several of the This paper explores potential actions to secure the commitments contained in the communiqués from these effectiveness and legitimacy of the G20, including the three summits. The former Financial Stability Forum possibilities for the G20 to expand its purview beyond (FSF) was upgraded to the FSB and expanded to include the financial crisis and act as a “global contact group” to all G20 members. On March 10, 2010, the FSB launched pursue policy consensus on various global problems. the Framework for Strengthening Adherence to International Standards. This initiative encourages Context all countries and jurisdictions to raise their level of adherence to international cooperation and The G20 group of finance ministers from the leading information exchange standards, including by industrial and developing economies was established in identifying non-cooperative jurisdictions and assisting 1999 in the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis; it was a them to improve their compliance. (FSB, 2010) joint initiative of Canada’s Finance Minister Paul Martin and US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. The G20 FSB members will undergo periodic peer reviews. The finance ministers were successful in forging consensus first peer review on implementation of the FSB Principles on a framework for debt restructuring and the need for for Sound Compensation Practices and their Implementation IMF reform (Goutier, 2010). In 2004, recognizing the Standards was completed in March 2010. The jury is out on changing global dynamic, Prime Minister Paul Martin the effectiveness of the proposed peer review.3 proposed raising the G20 to leaders’ level. Initially there was resistance, including in Washington, to yet another 2 US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson had a key role requesting a separate meeting with the G20 countries (McKinnon, 2008). 1 Ramesh Thakur has remarked that “the gap between promise and performance [of the UN] remains unacceptably large” (Thakur, 2002). 3 See Alloway (2010). 3 The Centre for International Governance Innovation In addition to the work of the FSB, the Organisation Internal dynamics could interfere with the G20’s potential for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to be the successful contact group for future global has been providing advice and policy analysis to governance. There are divisions within the G20 countries, governments, and developed a comprehensive strategic for example, on China’s monetary policy and currency plan to support the implementation of the Framework controls, the pace at which emerging and developing for Strong, Sustainable, and Balanced Growth, which the countries are recovering from the crisis, the timing for G20 launched at Pittsburgh. The OECD has focused the removal of stimulus packages, and the management on coordinated employment policies and standards of of trade protectionism.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Input and Output Legitimacy, Reforms, and Agenda
    ADBI Working Paper Series The Group of Twenty: Input and Output Legitimacy, Reforms, and Agenda Andrew F. Cooper No. 372 August 2012 Asian Development Bank Institute Andrew F. Cooper is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Waterloo/BSIA and is a distinguished fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation. The views expressed in this paper are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of ADBI, the ADB, its Board of Directors, or the governments they represent. ADBI does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this paper and accepts no responsibility for any consequences of their use. Terminology used may not necessarily be consistent with ADB official terms. The Working Paper series is a continuation of the formerly named Discussion Paper series; the numbering of the papers continued without interruption or change. ADBI’s working papers reflect initial ideas on a topic and are posted online for discussion. ADBI encourages readers to post their comments on the main page for each working paper (given in the citation below). Some working papers may develop into other forms of publication. Suggested citation: Cooper, A. F. 2012. The Group of Twenty: Input and Output Legitimacy, Reforms, and Agenda. ADBI Working Paper 372. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute. Available: http://www.adbi.org/working- paper/2012/08/08/5212.g20.input.output.legitimacy.reforms.agenda/ Please contact the author for information about this paper. Email: [email protected] Asian Development Bank Institute Kasumigaseki Building 8F 3-2-5 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 100-6008, Japan Tel: +81-3-3593-5500 Fax: +81-3-3593-5571 URL: www.adbi.org E-mail: [email protected] © 2012 Asian Development Bank Institute ADBI Working Paper 372 Cooper Abstract The Group of Twenty (G-20) deserves credit for opening up of the “top table” of global governance to a wider representation of countries on a geographic basis in general and Asia in particular.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Participation in the G20
    Australian Participation in the G20 Xu Yi-Chong Australia is committed to active participation and policy leadership within the G20. Indeed, Prime Minister of Australia in 2007-09, Kevin Rudd, is often credited with bringing the leaders of the G20 together for their first summit in September 2008. Four years later, the public, media and the international community have taken the G20 as a given and they expect that the old powers under the umbrella of the G8 would sit down at the table to discuss urgent international issues with the emerging economies as equals. In retrospect, this may be the case. History, however, could have gone in a different direction. In 2008, many multilateral and regional venues had existed for countries to manage their common problems: on macroeconomic issues, there were the remnants of the Bretton Woods system, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank; the old power club, the Financial Stability Forum of G7, G8; the World Economic Forum (WEF); the Bank of International Settlement (BIS) of central banks, and the list goes on. With many multilateral institutions available, there were still concerns about the relevance of these institutions. The Economist commented on the G8 summit in July 2008 as all the signs showed a coming recession in many developed countries: What is the point of their discussing the oil price without Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest producer? Or waffling about the dollar without China, which holds so many American Treasury bills? Or slapping sanctions on Robert Mugabe, with no African present? Or talking about global warming, AIDS or inflation without anybody from the emerging world? Cigar smoke and ignorance are in the air.1 It became clear that, even though emerging economies, especially BRICs, drew increasing worldwide attention, many still held that the “decoupling the- ory” was more of a dream than a reality, as evidenced in 2008 when emerging economies were affected by the economic down-turns in developed countries as they started reducing their imports.
    [Show full text]
  • General Assembly Distr.: General 13 October 2014
    United Nations A/C.2/69/3 General Assembly Distr.: General 13 October 2014 Original: English Sixty-ninth session Second Committee Agenda item 17 (b) Macroeconomic policy questions: international financial system and development Letter dated 8 October 2014 from the Permanent Representative of Singapore to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General I have the honour to transmit to you the paper entitled “Global Governance Group input to the Group of 20 on development and governance” (see annex) on behalf of the informal Global Governance Group, which comprises the following States Members of the United Nations: the Bahamas, the Kingdom of Bahrain, Barbados, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Costa Rica, the Republic of Finland, Guatemala, Jamaica, Kuwait, the Principality of Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, the Principality of Monaco, Montenegro, New Zealand, Panama, Peru, the Republic of the Philippines, the State of Qatar, the Republic of Rwanda, the Republic of San Marino, the Republic of Senegal, the Republic of Singapore, the Republic of Slovenia, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. On behalf of the Global Governance Group, I should be grateful if you would have the present letter and its annex circulated as a document of the sixty-ninth session of the General Assembly, under agenda item 17 (b). (Signed) Karen Tan Ambassador Permanent Representative 14-62493 (E) 171014 *1462493* A/C.2/69/3 Annex to the letter dated 8 October 2014 from the Permanent Representative of Singapore to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General Global Governance Group input to the Group of 20 on development and governance 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Ways of Global Governance Informal Institutions and the Role of Small States
    ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF 215 GLOBAL GOVERNANCE INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE ROLE OF SMALL STATES Katja Creutz FIIA BRIEFING PAPER 215 • February 2017 ULKOPOLIITTINEN INSTITUUTTI UTRIKESPOLITISKA INSTITUTET THE FINNISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF GLOBAL GOVERNANCE INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE ROLE OF SMALL STATES Katja Creutz FIIA Briefing Paper 215 Senior Research Fellow February 2017 The Global Security Research Programme The Finnish Institute of International Affairs • In addition to formal international organizations, alternative ways of arranging intergovernmental cooperation are proliferating. One tendency is to create looser structures around a shared purpose often without permanent secretariats. The G20 and the Arctic Council are examples of such informal intergovernmental institutions. • Informal institutions are preferred due to their supposed effectiveness, but also because of domestic politics. Most states participate in such institutions, but the United States in particular has favoured them over formal international organizations. • The increasing importance of informal institutions, especially if they seek to address global concerns, may be detrimental to small states that have traditionally relied on multilateral institutions and the rule of international law, such as the United Nations (UN). • Small states should actively engage with informal institutions instead of adopting a strategy of resistance. Small states can seek to play a part in these institutions, build coalitions to address transparency or inclusiveness concerns, or try to influence specific issues in their national interest. • A pragmatic approach to new institutional forms should not challenge the small states’ focus of attention on multilateral institutions and a rule-based international order, however. The interests of small states can be protected only by ensuring that all states may take part in global governance, based on sovereign equality.
    [Show full text]
  • The Challenges of Inclusive Multilateralism with Dignity in a Context of Climate Change and Scarcity
    Global Governance Group 10 Group Global Governance The Challenges of The world is in transition from unipolarity to polycentrism with a greater Inclusive Multilateralism multiplicity of actors, from states to civil society organisations, private actors, networks, and regional cooperation groups, playing an important role in shaping the future of citizens around the world. A global middle class is demanding a more effective multilateral system to deal with a number The 2013 Report of the of perceived global challenges but in a polycentric world there are both opportunities for greater effectiveness and a danger of fragmentation. The Global Governance Group 10 objective of this Report is to start a process of monitoring the adaptation of international institutions to the new realities of power. To do so, the Report looks at how global governance institutions are responding to global challenges, in particular those of political participation and of development Multilateralism of Inclusive Challenges The with dignity in a context of climate change and scarcity. The Report places the citizens and their aspirations at the heart of the analysis and it is with this perspective that we monitor the challenges of security with emphasis on the application of the principle of responsibility to protect. ISBN 978-9944-927-59-8 published for the Global Governance Group 10 by the Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey Secretariat of the GG10 2012-2013 [email protected] © Global Governance Group 10. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, pho- tocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the copyright holder.
    [Show full text]
  • " I Am Making This Statement on Behalf of the Informal Global Governance Group (3G), Comprising the Following Member States
    PERIVIANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE TO THE UNITED NATIONS 231 East 51" Street, New York, NY 10022 Tel: 212-826 0840 x 104 Fax: 212-826 2964 Website: http://www mla 90V s91newyork STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR VANU GOPALA MENON PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF SINGAPORE TO THE UNITED NATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE GROUP (3G) AT THE MEETING OF THE AD HOC OPEN-ENDED WORKING GROUP TO FOLLOW UP ON THE CONFERENCE LAST JUNE OF THE WORLD FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC CRISIS AND ITS IMPACT ON DEVELOPMENT "STRENGTHENING THE ROLE OF THE UN IN GLOBAL ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE" 2 JUNE 2010 " I am making this statement on behalf of the informal Global Governance Group (3G), comprising the following Member States of the United Nations, viz the Commonwealth of the Bahamas, the Kingdom of Bahrain, Barbados, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Jamaica, the State of Kuwait, the Principality of Liechtenstein, Malaysia, the Principality of Monaco, New Zealand, Panama, the Republic of the Philippines, the State of Qatar, the Republic of Rwanda, the RepUblic of San Marino, the Republic of Senegal, the Republic of Singapore, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates and Uruguay' " The global economic crisis has underscored the need for more effective global governance mechanisms for policy coordination and international cooperation. In this context, the G-20 has taken on an active role in catalysing global actions in response to the financial crisis since November 2008 III However, the actions and decisions of the G-20 have implications beyond its membership. Many Member States have felt some impact from such decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gulf States and the Rebalancing of Regional and Global Power
    JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RICE UNIVERSITY THE GULF STATES AND THE REBALANCING OF REGIONAL AND GLOBAL POWER BY KRISTIAN COATES ULRICHSEN, PH.D. FELLOW FOR KUWAIT JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RICE UNIVERSITY JANUARY 8, 2014 The Gulf States and the Rebalancing of Regional and Global Power THIS PAPER WAS WRITTEN BY A RESEARCHER WHO PARTICIPATED IN A BAKER INSTITUTE RESEARCH PROJECT. WHEREVER FEASIBLE, PAPERS ARE REVIEWED BY OUTSIDE EXPERTS BEFORE THEY ARE RELEASED. HOWEVER, THE RESEARCH AND VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS PAPER ARE THOSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL RESEARCHER, AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY. © 2014 BY THE JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY OF RICE UNIVERSITY THIS MATERIAL MAY BE QUOTED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION, PROVIDED APPROPRIATE CREDIT IS GIVEN TO THE AUTHOR AND THE JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY. 2 The Gulf States and the Rebalancing of Regional and Global Power The awarding of the hosting rights to the 2022 FIFA World Cup to Qatar on December 2, 2010, symbolized for outside observers the rapid rise of the Gulf Cooperation Council states (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) as regional powers with global reach. Their emergence in the 2000s came against the backdrop of an international order in flux as the post-1945 institutions and mechanisms of global governance struggled to maintain their relevance in a polycentric world. Of particular importance is the broadening and deepening of political and economic connections between the Gulf states and Asian partners.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Global Economic Council: Governance Reform and The
    DIIS workingDIIS WORKING PAPER 2011:25paper The new Global Economic Council: Governance reform at the G20, the IMF and the World Bank Jakob Vestergaard and Robert Wade DIIS Working Paper 2011:25 WORKING PAPER 1 DIIS WORKING PAPER 2011:25 JAKOB VESTERGAARD [email protected] ROBERT H. WADE [email protected] This article is based on partly joint, partly separate research. Vestergaard’s earlier publications on the subject are referenced throughout the text. Wade’s argument is given in “The emerging world order? Multipolarity, multilateralism, the G20, the World Bank and the IMF”, Politics and Society, forthcoming DIIS Working Papers make available DIIS researchers’ and DIIS project partners’ work in progress towards proper publishing. They may include important documentation which is not necessarily published elsewhere. DIIS Working Papers are published under the responsibility of the author alone. DIIS Working Papers should not be quoted without the express permission of the author. DIIS WORKING PAPER 2011:25 © The authors and DIIS, Copenhagen 2011 Danish Institute for International Studies, DIIS Strandgade 56, DK-1401 Copenhagen, Denmark Ph: +45 32 69 87 87 Fax: +45 32 69 87 00 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.diis.dk Cover Design: Carsten Schiøler Layout: Ellen-Marie Bentsen Printed in Denmark by Vesterkopi AS ISBN: 978-87-7605-472-4 Price: DKK 25.00 (VAT included) DIIS publications can be downloaded free of charge from www.diis.dk 2 DIIS WORKING PAPER 2011:25 CONTENTS Abstract 4 Policy implications 4 Introduction 5 Rise of the G20 8 The G20’S legitimacy
    [Show full text]
  • “Re-Balancing the G20 from Efficiency to Legitimacy: the 3G Coalition and the Practice of Global Governance”
    “Re-balancing the G20 from efficiency to legitimacy: The 3G coalition and the practice of global governance” By Andrew F. Cooper and Bessma Momani As Submitted in 2013. Abstract: This article contributes to the literature on global governance, legitimacy and small states through a detailed analysis of the Global Governance Group (3G). We examine in particular the operational impact and wider conceptual implications of the 3G’s collective diplomatic efforts on the Group of 20 (G20). By engaging in a reconfigured form of informal multilateralism we find that the 3G has been and is capable of shaping the global agenda with respect to the G20 in a way that is both more inclusive and connected with existing institutions, especially the United Nations (UN). Through this initiative, this group has effectively re-calibrated the existing narrative about small states, the G20, and global governance – shifting it from the paradigm of efficiency to one of legitimacy. Keywords: 3G; G20; Global Governance; informal groups; small states Informal Global Governance As new centers of power mobilize and old institutions fall behind the curve of change, the trend in world politics has been for countries to substitute, bypass or marginalize established institutions of global governance in favor of engagement with new forms of cooperative institutional arrangements – in short, towards informality in global governance. International Relations theory has traditionally been uneasy with forms of informal global governance.1 Realists have dismissed them as irrelevant
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to the Group of 20 (G20) Agenda
    The Green Political Foundation Issue #1 Written by Nancy Alexander, Heinrich Böll Stiftung North America February 2015 Introduction to the Group of 20 (G20) AGENDA. Turkey’s agenda concentrates on three “I”s: Inclusiveness, Implementation, and Investment/Infrastructure. To demonstrate inclusiveness, Turkey will focus on the con- SUMMARY cerns of Low-Income Developing Countries (as defined by the ORIGIN AND PURPOSE. In 1999, in response to the East IMF) as well as the interests of Small- and Medium-Sized Asian Financial Crisis, the finance ministers of the United Enterprises (SMEs). It is working with the International States and Canada chose the members of the G20, includ- Chamber of Commerce to establish a World SME Forum. ing 19 countries and one region, the European Union. The agenda includes three pillars, eleven topics, and two Until 2008, the G20 met as a forum for finance minis- cross-cutting themes as shown in the diagram below: ters and central bankers. Then, the Group began meeting at the level of Leaders’ (Presidents and Prime Ministers) in order to address the global financial crisis. The G20 is more inclusive than the Group of 8 (G8); its member countries represent about 85% of global output and trade and two-thirds of the global population. GOVERNANCE AND AGENDA. In 2015, Turkey is the President of the G20. It coordinates G20 governance with its “Troika” partners — the past and future G20 presi- dents, which are Australia and China, respectively. In addition to convening the most important ministerial group — Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors – Turkey will convene Foreign Ministers as well as Labor, Trade, Energy, Agriculture and Tourism Ministers.
    [Show full text]
  • Informalisation of World Politics? Global Governance by Clubs
    GT_2013_buch_englisch_rinke_schneckener_satz_neu.qxd 24.09.2012 13:03 Seite 3 World Orders and Peace Informalisation of World Politics? Global Governance by Clubs Bernhard Rinke / Ulrich Schneckener Informal multilateral governance formats, such as "coalitions of the willing" or "clubs" like the Group of Eight (G8) and Group of Twenty (G20), are gaining influence in world politics, at least according to the popular perception. In practice, these clubs compete for political attention, concepts and resources. Whether this trend will make tackling global problems any easier in the medium term remains to be seen. What we can say, for now, is that the pressure of problems in many fields – whether in security, financial, development, climate or energy policy – has increased, without commensurate political capacities having developed to manage these problems at a global level. On the contrary, in many policy fields, largely disconnected parallel processes exist in different formats. This results in duplications, proliferating summits and communiqués and an overabundance of government and private funds, initiatives and programmes – inside and outside the United Nations (UN) system. To that extent, global governance is characterised by a highly fragmented, heterogeneous structure which is shaped by different modes of managing and steering political processes, whose legitimacy and effectiveness must now be critically reviewed. Figure 1: Clubs formed by the industrial and newly industrialised countries 21 GT_2013_buch_englisch_rinke_schneckener_satz_neu.qxd 24.09.2012 13:03 Seite 4 Informalisation of World Politics? Global Governance by Clubs The informalisation of multilateral decision-making processes. These may governance produce issue-specific regimes and/or inter- nationally binding legal arrangements, norms and standards – often with corresponding International politics, and especially the sanction mechanisms (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • General Assembly Distr.: General 5 October 2011
    United Nations A/C.2/66/3 General Assembly Distr.: General 5 October 2011 Original: English Sixty-sixth session Second Committee Agenda item 17 (b) Macroeconomic policy questions: international financial system and development Letter dated 3 October 2011 from the Permanent Representative of Singapore to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General I have the honour to transmit to you, on behalf of the informal Global Governance Group (3G), comprising the following States Members of the United Nations: Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Costa Rica, Finland, Guatemala, Jamaica, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Monaco, Montenegro, New Zealand, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, San Marino, Senegal, Singapore, Slovenia, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay and Viet Nam, a document entitled “Global Governance Group (3G) inputs to the G-20 on global governance” (see annex). On behalf of the 3G, I would be grateful if you would have the present letter and its annex circulated as a document of the sixty-sixth session of the General Assembly, under agenda item 17 (b). (Signed) Albert Chua Ambassador and Permanent Representative 11-53267 (E) 071011 *1153267* A/C.2/66/3 Annex to the letter dated 3 October 2011 from the Permanent Representative of Singapore to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General Global Governance Group (3G) inputs to the G-20 on global governance 1. The Global Governance Group (3G)1 recognizes the important role played by the Group of 20 (G-20) in stemming the worst effects of the 2008 global economic and financial crisis and in addressing aspects of global economic governance related to the rebalancing of the global economy and achieving a stable recovery.
    [Show full text]